Hernandez v. Hernandez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Claudia Arias's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendants from effectuating an eviction from a specific property. The court denied the application because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, a favorable balance of equities, or that the injunction served the public interest.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order is denied.“For these reasons, Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test for injunctive relief established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles. The order explicitly states that the Plaintiff failed to address or demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, balance of equities, or public interest. Under the cited authorities, failure to satisfy any one of these factors is sufficient to deny the request for injunctive relief. Therefore, the denial follows logically from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for a TRO as identical to that of a preliminary injunction, citing binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority. It applies this standard to the facts, noting the Plaintiff's failure to meet the required showings for likelihood of success, balance of equities, and public interest. The reasoning is complete and directly supports the denial.
Opinion
5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA ARIAS, an individual, Case No: 22-CV-1203-DMS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR 14 MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, an TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER individual; GEORGE TOBIN, an 15 individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Claudia Arias’s ex parte application 20 for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendants Miguel Hernandez and 21 George Tobin, restraining them against “effectuating, executing, or enforcing any eviction” 22 against Plaintiff and her family from the property in litigation . . . 1917 Terrakappa Avenue, 23 Spring Valley, CA 91977.” (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff alternatively requests a limited 24 temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing. Defendants 25 filed an opposition to the application. (ECF No. 30.) The Court takes the matter under 26 submission without oral argument. 27 /// 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a 4 preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed 5 merely to prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. See Granny Goose Foods, 6 Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (noting 7 a temporary restraining order is restricted to its “underlying purpose of preserving the status 8 quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 9 longer”). Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 10 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 11 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order 12 is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Lockheed Missile & Space 13 Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A party seeking 14 injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 must show “‘that he is likely to 15 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 16 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 17 the public interest.’” Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th 18 Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 19 Here, Plaintiff has not shown she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. 20 Plaintiff argues that she will suffer irreparable harm by facing “serious jeopardy of 21 becoming homeless” and argues Defendants will not suffer irreparable harm if enjoined. 22 However, she does not address any other prong to warrant injunctive relief. Plaintiffs has 23 not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, that the balance of equities weighs in her 24 favor, or that an injunction would serve the public interest in this case. In the absence of 25 such a showing, Plaintiff is not entitled to a temporary restraining order. 26 II. 27 CONCLUSION 1 For these reasons, Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order 2 DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: February 1, 2023 2» 5 rn Yn. L4\ 6 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28